I hope Skinner sticks with the new "unrecommend" function.

[kentuck]

Not that I have any intention to use it. But I cannot understand all the whining and crying about it? Why are people worried so much about it??

Are they afraid they will be "unrecommended" because they are so unpopular? Or are they afraid they might be discovered as a "freeper"? What exactly are they afraid of?

I wonder how many people have actually used the function thus far? If somebody makes a really stupid post, don't they deserve to have an "unrecommend"? What's wrong with that?

Who here has so many enemies that they would fear such an idea?? I think some people might have something to hide?

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. K&R

Very noteworthy.

[havocmom]

2. Me thinks some fear not making it to the Greatest Page with only a small posse

Having some critical thought by the masses of evilDUers come into play seems to have a few off their pablum.

[TexasObserver]

11. LOL! And so true!

[chill_wind]

55. It strikes me that the real fear is what gets traction by more than the so-called "small posse."

I'm firmly unconvinced that all that many DUers have given a fig about stuff with 5 recs that just hangs around the bottom margins of interest. It's the attention to ideas that may be polarizing but still manage to climb and attract a lot of visible debate that seem to be the problem.

This is about the gatekeeping of ideas and especially what the front page "should and shouldn't look like."
Nothing wrong with that, especially if that's what the Admins and a sufficient majority here want, but let's be honest about what it is-- and isn't.

[leftstreet]

3. K&UnR

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

135. me too. Kick and "unrecommend"

heh

[havocmom]

4. Oh look! A DU tug o war broke out.

Such grand old fashioned summertime fun!

:rofl:

[kentuck]

5. It's nice to see where people stand.

We are an open and democratic underground! :-)

[chill_wind]

112. Except that you don't.

Not anymore than you did before. What you glimpse is a heightened bunch of anonymous "tug of war" voting activity except where people actually choose to speak up. Which is the same option (actual dialogue) everyone always had and still does.

The only thing gained is that there is now more parity in the anonymous voting scheme. That seems to be very important to people and there's nothing wrong with that kind of fairness if that's the ultimate preoccupation.

[MineralMan]

6. I hope people start posting comments about this

in existing threads. There is already a plethora of OPs on the subject. I don't see where this one adds anything new.

[kentuck]

7. I think it adds a lot!

It uncovers a lot of the subterfuge and game-playing.

[TexasObserver]

14. This one is specifically titled to garner SUPPORT indications, so it is different.

This one is distinctive, because it states affirmatively that the feature should be retained.

[MineralMan]

21. There are several such threads already.

I agree with the sentiment, but not the incessant new thread-posting.

These threads are what are driving valuable threads off the first pages of the forum. Click Latest and scroll down. Every rec/unrec thread is pushing other stories off the first page, and down where they won't be seen.

[TexasObserver]

25. We'll have to agree to disagree. The volume merely follows interest level.

You don't think it's distinctive, but your judgment is merely yours.

I don't agree with your concern about "valuable threads" being pushed off the first page. This is a message board, and the more people wish to talk about a topic, the more the topic commands the first page.

You have Hide Thread as a feature, and should use it if you don't like seeing some topics. That's why it's there.

[BlooInBloo]

22. There are few explicit unrec support threads. Just a vast majority of unrec supporters.

[CJCRANE]

8. K&R nt

[UndertheOcean]

9. Me too.

[TexasObserver]

10. K&R!!

[lamp_shade]

12. I'm noticing farrrrrrr fewer knee-jerk and crap posts. It's wonderful.

[gkhouston]

67. Maybe Skinner should rename the button "Epic Fail". It's great for that kind of post. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

13. I'm surely second-to-none in the number of people who don't like me here....

And I'm for the ability of each member to vote 'yes' or 'no', or not vote - as they see fit.

[Fumesucker]

80. I disagree..

I Can Easily Think Of A Poster I Dislike More Than You..

Thank Gawd It Passed..

[seabeyond]

123. nu uh. and i agree. n/t

[asteroid2003QQ47]

146. What about Bob!?

He's got feelings too ya know!
-----------------------------
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate
-Noam Chomsky

[Amerigo Vespucci]

15. "...all the whining and crying about it..."

Ya know, kentuck, I reach several kinds of people on DU.

1). The group I consistently refer to as "my posse"...very cool men and women I've chatted with on occasion, who've made comments in my threads (as I have in theirs), who treat me with respect as I do with them...people who I admire and enjoy sharing occasional "quality cyber-time" with.

2). People who are doing their thing, just like I'm doing mine, and while our paths may never cross, every once in a while they do, and it's like flashing a peace sign across a crowded room. Short, sweet, pleasant.

3). People who roam the threads and post things like "DUPLICATE" or "THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTED" with a link and no additional comments, or who make smart-assed remarks (NOT in the spirit of good fun, but to be deliberately sarcastic and / or hurtful) or conduct personal attacks, who ultimately end up on my "ignore" list.

I've posted threads that received double-digit recommendations and the little "flame" icon as the result of a boatload of responses, and I've posted threads where you could watch the tumbleweeds roll on by and hear the lonesome cry of a coyote in the distance.

It's all good.

I came here, went through my "trial posting period," passed, started posting my own threads, found a voice, made some friends.

Some people like me, some people think I'm a prick. Both groups might be right. I might just be a nice prick, ya know?

But in the long run, I lose no sleep whatsoever over whether I am "rec'd" or "unrec'd."

:toast:

[leftstreet]

18. So you think people will vote yea/nay on the poster, rather than the content?

:shrug:

[Amerigo Vespucci]

23. I absolutely guarantee that will happen to a degree

That wasn't actually the message I was trying to put across, but yes, absolutely.

You'll have three groups: those who give the thumbs up or down based on content, those who do it based on the poster, and a combination of the two. That seems like common sense to me.

The intent of my post was basically "I could give a rat's ass if my threads get recommended or unrecommended." This isn't American Idol. It's Democratic Underground. Big difference. It's just that some people don't see a difference, and now they can recommend or unrecommend threads.

[kentuck]

24. Right on!

:-)

[BlooInBloo]

26. Just like previously people could rec a poster and not a thread...

While it's stupid, at least now it can work both ways.

I say that as likely to come out on the very short end of that stick for my future posts.


EDIT: And it's hilarious, now that people have the ability to vote EITHER way, people are expressing concern over vote fraud. :rofl:

[Amerigo Vespucci]

30. If I didn't love my screen name here, I'd change it to "Hanging Chad."

:rofl:

[gkhouston]

68. Really pushing that "nice prick" meme, I see.

:9

[Amerigo Vespucci]

74. HEY! I considered it to be "full disclosure."

Well...not FULL disclosure. When it comes to the truth, there are some people here who can't handle the truth.

:-)

[kentuck]

20. I agree.

It is such a trivial matter whether my posts are recommended or unrecommended that it simply does not matter to me. I try to make posts to get people to think. Sometimes I piss people off. Sometimes people agree with me. But my intent is to make DU a more thoughtful and intelligent place. Whether I succeed or not is an open question?

[noamnety]

16. When you post something on here

is it generally for your ego? Or is it because you want an issue to have wider readership?

I see a lot of people assuming the concern is about "popularity" or ego of the poster, and it makes me wonder if those people primarily post to be popular and assume others do as well.

[Maru Kitteh]

17. K&R - It's a very good feature.

[yodoobo]

19. Apparently, people invest their entire ego into their thread

And an unrec is an assault upon that ego.

This whole drama is the silliest thing I've ever seen.

[TexasObserver]

27. Ding! Ding! Ding!

[NeedleCast]

28. Me too, I like it

[kentuck]

29. I think it tends to separate the wheat from the chaff...

and those posts that get to the Greatest Page will truly be worthy from consensus, not just from yes votes but also from those that oppose.

[Laelth]

31. Paranoia is not pretty.

Those of us who are opposed to the unrec function have legitimate concerns. Instead of being heard on this subject, we are being derided, dismissed, mocked, and accused of being freepers.

That's downright rude.

The unrec function allows those of you who know you hold the majority opinion to be more rude than usual (cuz' you're a member of the cool kids clique). I hated high school for a reason. This is it.

:dem:

-Laelth

[kentuck]

32. What's the "majority opinion" of which you speak?

If you or I post something worthy, it gets voted to the greatest page. I don't expect people to vote for my post because they like me as a person. I would not want that. I would prefer they vote for my post because they appreciate the value in the ideas.

[bertman]

33. I just Unrecommended this thread, Kentuck. Here's my reason:

"Are they afraid they will be "unrecommended" because they are so unpopular? Or are they afraid they might be discovered as a "freeper"? What exactly are they afraid of?"

That is possibly one of THE biggest BULLSHIT phrases I have had the displeasure of seeing appear on this website.

I oppose the Unrecommend option because it allows someone to subvert a thread without putting forth their reason or even their screen name. Anonymous destruction, in other words.

[kentuck]

37. Well, thank you!

You are entitled to your opinion. Although I think you do exaggerate just a tad, "THE biggest BULLSHIT phrases I have had the displeasure of seeing appear on this website". That covers a lot of territory. :-)

[nashville_brook]

39. it's like an anonymous denial of service attack -- right here for everyone to use!!

how cornveeeniant.

[kentuck]

40. What do you mean, nashville_brook?

How so?

[ellie]

34. Me too! It is awesome!

Since the election there has been something a little off about DU. I couldn't really put my finger on it, but it seemed like it became a really negative place, having been on DU since practically the beginning. We should be happy! Bush was gone! The repukes were soundly defeated! But no! Here came the Obama haters, thinking he was going to change things in six months! It seemed like everyone felt this way, but now, after reading the gnashing of teeth threads about the unrec button, I realize that there is a small group of people who keep the Obama hating alive by recommending each other's threads. You can see who they are by looking at the posts, you know, the usual suspects. I never put people on ignore because their insanity is refreshing like running through a sprinkler on a hot day. I am just glad they all posted in one place so I can see who they all are.

So, yay Skinner!

[noamnety]

35. It sounds like you would consider this a success

if posts critical of Obama were kept off the greatest page.

[BlooInBloo]

41. I consider it a success if the majority of people who care enough to vote want it there....

Whatever the post is.

[kentuck]

43. That sounds so....

democratic. :-)

[BlooInBloo]

48. I know. I'm such a lunatic.

[ellie]

45. I read your reply to my post

and as I was thinking about how to answer, I went back and looked at some posts that scream "Obama backing out of yet another campaign promise!" when in fact he is not doing any such thing. And then I thought about what kind of person would post such a thing. People who, when the facts are staring them in the face, declare the opposite is true. These are the kinds of posts I was talking about, not ones that are critical of Obama. So how you gleaned that I don't want to read anything critical of Obama from my original post is a mystery.

[noamnety]

46. So you would consider it a success

if the greatest page included posts critical of Obama, but phrased in less inflammatory ways?

[gkhouston]

71. I would. There is a difference between saying, "In such and such a speech,

Obama said blah-blah but so far, this is what's happened and that sucks because..." and "Obama's a lying douchebag who never meant any of those bullshit promises he made". I don't expect rainbows and unicorns on DU, but I would rather not contract rabies while reading a post.

[noamnety]

73. Thanks for the response

That's a rationale position to take, I certainly can't argue with it. I wish I had confidence that everyone felt that way, and that a post which followed the first format you gave would be allowed to stand on the greatest page. I don't have faith that most DUers would make that distinction.

When I read ellie's post, what struck me was the inflammatory language choices she made, while complaining about those other people making it such a negative place.

" ... Obama haters ... gnashing of teeth threads ... a small group of people who keep the Obama hating alive ... the usual suspects... their insanity is refreshing ..."

In truth, most of us have moments of hypocrisy on that point, we get too wrapped up in a topic, we use words that reflects our anger. In calmer moments, we question why we can't all just be civil. But it's rare to see all that vitriol included right directly in a post complaining that others are being too negative. It makes me question what she would consider a negative post - if her judgment would be really based on the language in the post, or whether it was just based on a post representing a viewpoint she didn't agree with.

[Better Believe It]

86. So is the DLC making its move on DU using the "unrecommend" feature?

I hope not. But, has anyone ever said they play fair with their liberal/progressive opponents?

[chill_wind]

36. Keep it or lose it, but keep it honest and real.

Show the damn straightforward unobscured numbers-- BOTH SETS-- or eliminate both functions.
Either way works for me.

[kentuck]

38. It's called consensus...

If 125 vote for it and 125 vote against it, there is no consensus. However, if only 125 vote for it, it is at the top of the greatest page and no one will ever know that anyone might disagree with it...

[chill_wind]

50. Then what's the problem showing the actual tallies?

BOTH sets?

[kentuck]

51. I have no problem with that...

but the total will still be the same.

[EFerrari]

42. It's none of those things for me. It just seems as though

it encourages anonymous mean behavior. And with the votes changing so much, it seems to get people focused on the recs and not on the issues in the OP. People are paying more attention but I wonder if it's attention to the thing that will make the board better.

[UTUSN]

44. UnRec shows that DU is a (loose) coalition of interest groups like the Dem Party itself

I never look at the "Greatest" page, but DO a LOT of K&R-ing to give prominence to threads that would be missed by visitors or THE MEDIA, who don't have time to delve INTO DU, and who more than likely ONLY look at the Greatest page.

Other threads on the topic have identified the main characteristic of UnRec, that organized groups will use it to block out opposing groups, but they usually limit it to TWO groups, Centrists vs Progressives.

Actually, UnRec will be a weapon used by ANY group, including personal vendetta individuals. Anybody who thinks that 100% of members will ONLY use it based on merit is laughably naive.

We *do* have members who are, for example, anti-immigrant, who flirt with racist reasons for being anti-immigrant or who are not self-aware of their incipient racism. But they are only one of MANY different groups. Now, all groups can actually FLAME anonymously. Just look at LBN, where the very active CHAVISTAS swarm on anything negative about Huguito. Now they, and all other groups, have this additional tool to put the Sign of Disapproval on any thread they don't like---together with the APPEARANCE that monolithic DU itself is doing the disapproving.

And ANY topic that challenges the conventional (DU or otherwise) wisdom will instantly be noosed with negative territory ratings. Notice that ALL of the threads opposing UnRec are rated negatively.


My own personal pique is laughable: As an admittedly erratic poster whose posts range from bottom-of-the-barrel to things that actually are invested with time and effort, I have gotten used to seeing ALL of my threads SINK LIKE ROCKS, so the "Greatest" is not of any concern to me. But now they will also be ignominiously marked with the Scarlet Letter as they GO!1 Bwa-ha-HAH!1

[UTUSN]

47. Btw, the counter is OFF: Shows this thread as having 22 replies, but there are 40+ n/t

[chill_wind]

62. Lots of good points in your post and you made me laugh

with your last paragraph. I can totally relate as an also erratic and fairly scarce thread starter that gave up on any delusions of achieving any sustained DU "page greatness" a loooooong time ago, lol.

I can't say I would be all that bothered at all by seeing some truer quantification (via unrecs, I guess) of whether I am just as all that damn boring as I've come to assume I am, or whether I'm just so far out in the weeds on some things I'm just off the comfortable accepted map. No matter, I mostly come here to read more articulate people's efforts and I think your points above are well made.

[UTUSN]

63. So that was YOU I bumped into "far out in the weeds"?!1 Thanks & back at you!1 AND

I'm going to assume your permission and incorporate "far out in the weeds" into my Saved version of my post!1

[chill_wind]

65. No "rights reserved" on my part, whatsoever. :-)

[kentuck]

49. Do most people here really care whether or not their posts make it...?

to the greatest page? Is that a goal for some folks? It just doesn't matter that much folks.

You can have a great post and maybe not have any votes for the greatest page? It is not really a vote for greatness - it is a vote for a consensus amongst all the DUers that might wish to vote on a post.

It's really not that important.

[Kingofalldems]

52. I suspect (as some others do) that the disuptor crowd

is having a ball with the unrec feature. I like the concept but it could probably be improved.

[scheming daemons]

56. I think the "disruptor" crowd are the ones complaining about it the most

Their "divide and conquer" strategy is less effective.

[UTUSN]

59. Nope. The disruptors are in every sub-group & are the shock troops for their group

And they see themselves as noble guerrillas for their own sub-group and flexible in their tactics. Iow, flamers for a noble cause.

[Aramchek]

53. agreed

[apocalypsehow]

54. Well stated - I agree 100%. Rec'd. n/t

[Odin2005]

57. It unleashed the persecution complex of certan DUers

There is a small but shrill and vocal minority of DUers that think that anyone who attacks anti-Obama hit-pieces is a paid DLC corporatist hack out to silence them. The neurotic behavior of these posters is disturbing.

[WI_DEM]

58. Here is the reason it is so unpopular with some around here

Some posters used to post attacks on President Obama with dubious sources and a small clique would make sure it was on the "Greatest Page" even though it didn't necessarily reflect the views of most posters here. But it was a tool to get to the "Greatest Page" which made it appear that it is a view that is favored by most here. Now they have lost it and they are upset about it. That doesn't mean that liberal/progressive views are not reflected anymore on "Greatest page"--all you have to do is check it out. And it doesn't mean that Greatest Page doesn't include any criticism of Obama because it does, but it's the way the post is written along with how it's supported by real facts that makes a difference.

[BlooInBloo]

60. I have yet to see anyone claim that the Greatest page is *worse* now than it was....

And I've explicitly solicited opinions, several times about it.

[kentuck]

61. I think it is a more accurate and honest reflection of DU as a whole...

just my opinion. But it's no big deal, either way.

[Aramchek]

66. i was just checking it out and the posts were on the whole, very informative

very few if any hollow attack/negative threads

I think this experiment is working perfectly.

When all are allowed equal voices in filtering ourselves,
the Cream does seem to rise, after all.

[scheming daemons]

64. +100, WI_DEM

[omega minimo]

69. What an intentionally ignorant and inflammatory load of irrational provocation

Beneath you I would have thought. Unless you are trying to provoke.

You haven't even TRIED to look at discussion on this and various reasons before taking a dump like this.

You are encouraging all the belligerrent boneheads who are THRILLED by their new toy.

Best display of willful ignorance on this topic EVER.

:thumbsdown:

[kentuck]

70. Isn't it possible that this is my honest opinion?

And who's trying to provoke??

[omega minimo]

99. Honest but uninformed. Reading some of the threads on this

would reveal more for one to base an opinion on, rather than ask rhetorically "Why?" and pull a bunch of hollow, insulting suppositions out of your suppository.

[druidity33]

72. yeah, but

i haven't seen a SINGLE Michael Jackson thread on the Greatest Page since they instituted this unrec thing.

Everything has its upside, dontcha know...


take it easy, it'll all work itself out.

;)

[Kaleva]

75. I like it.

It seems to make the Greatest Page more democratic. Before, a thread could make the page with just 5 votes even if the vast majority of DU members didn't think it was worthy.

[BlooInBloo]

76. It really is that simple. And that's exactly why the anti-unrec'ers don't like it.

[Usrename]

120. It's just like a lot of the other sites now. All chaff and no wheat.

From the sound of your post, you don't like people to able to express minority views here and be widely read.


And why not show how many unrecs a post has? Is there a reason to keep that info from the members?


I'm wondering if you also believe in the official story that is told in the 9/11 Commission Report? Seriously, do you believe it?

[Greyhound]

77. I don't care, but it is a tool to silence any minority. n/t

[kentuck]

79. Can you explain how it silences any minority?

I don't understand that position??

[Greyhound]

81. By keeping unpopular or contentious issues off the Greatest page. n/t

[kentuck]

82. I understand that position, however...

there is the assumption that unpopular or contentious issues have the merit to be on the greatest page.

That does not mean they do not get a fair hearing. They get bumped to the top of the page everytime someone responds to them.

Most DUers are looking for posts that are unique in perspective and enlightening in some way toward the truth, not necessarily unpopular or contentious. It's like pornography. It's difficult to define. But we know it when we see it.

We should not be in search of popularity or emotional exclamations. For example, if I write a post and all it says is "FUCK IT!" with a "period" in the body of the post and it gets to the top of the greatest page, you might say it is a "minority" position and deserving of its reward. Others might see it different?

(edited the word pornography) :-)

[Usrename]

119. What would be contentious about a post that said fuck it?

What the hell are you rambling on about?

[kentuck]

126. Fuck it!

Why does no one but you get to decide what gets on the greatest page? Because you vote for "fuck it" and nobody has a right to question you or to vote against putting "fuck it" on the greatest page? Maybe "fuck it" deserves to be on the greatest page? If the people vote for it, then so be it. That is the democratic way to do it, in my opinion.

Why did we decide to keep freepers out of DU in the first place? Do you remember? We didn't need the distractions. We didn't need the interruptions. We didn't need the nonsense. There was plenty of disagreements amongst Democrats, without the freepers having their illogical nonsense thrown into the middle of everything. Sometimes I don't see a whole of difference in the nonsense?

[Greyhound]

124. "We should not be in search of popularity or emotional exclamations."

That is exactly the point. As I said in the original reply, I don't care one way or the other, DU has become nothing but another corporate outlet while the owners are hoping to get some of those Democratic dollars tossed their in their direction and that is, I believe, the primary motivation for this move. Keeping minority opinions off the greatest page increases the odds of that happening.

However, Democracy demands that those dissenting opinions are heard as well as those that advocate them, and that others see them. As Benjamin Franklin said, "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner, liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

[kentuck]

128. Excellent quote!

But I don't think it is analogous to the issue at hand. I would say that the wolves and the lambs are in the eye of the beholder.

[Greyhound]

139. Thank you., but I believe otherwise. The issue is that we (members) now have the ability to

suppress thoughts and ideas with which we do not agree, and I can't think of anything less in the founding spirit of DU than that.

It is not news that Skinner & Co. have been trying to find some way of attracting some of those Democratic Party Dollars for a long time and I can certainly understand that. What has stood in their way are the very people that have made it possible in the first place.

Take DailyKos for example, Kos is a "reformed" Republik, he has said so many times and still holds the views that made him a Republik in the first place. Now, look at the diaries that are featured up-front on his site, they are almost universally reflective of the corporatist POV within the Democratic Party. Not coincidentally his site got lots of press which has led him to a new career of "talk show pundit", fellow for the pro-corprate "centrist" New Politics Institute and now as a columnist for Newsweek to "balance" Karl Rove, all of which are far more lucrative than struggling lawyer with no real connections.

Now look at "Skinner", he started DU earlier, has been right more often and for far longer, initially got more members and notoriety, but he made a significant error, he adopted a more democratic and open system. Anybody could join and post and he created a free-for-all medium where those that are traditionally shut out of any conversation have a voice and are not afraid to use it. All of this is just great except that every time someone that might matter in the DNC checks the site, they see something like "Pelosi is a traitorous thief", or "How much fucking powder does Harry Reid need and how dry can it get?"

Eight years and a lot of very hard work later David Allen has a kid and a career and all of the problems that life in the corporatocracy brings with it. Meanwhile, Markos Moulitsas is a millionaire and gets invited to all the right parties, and what's the difference, one did what he was told and the other did what was right.

So now we have both a system and a membership that will greatly reduce the likelihood of a "Not a dime's worth of difference" post from being seen on the front page, we still have a democracy, but far less liberty.

[truedelphi]

148. Oh mi gawd, I cannot believe you said what you said

ALOUD!

Been thinking the same things, so when they TS you, they might as well TS me (FOR MY THOUGHTS!)

Funny how Obama comes out and says, circa two weeks ago, that the more progressive among us should friggin' shut up, and then about ten days later, Earl G and Skinner make sure that we have a censorship button!

How convenient for Earl G and Skinner!

how friggin convenient.

BTW, one excuse given for offering this Un rec feature is that it happens with DIGG. But DIGG has thirty two to thirty five MILLION memebers - we have less than 150,000. SO the censorship is extreme. The people over at the Latin American forum cannot even get any LBN news features up and running, unless the news feature is slanted to the right of the regular news!

I came here to DU because of a search for TRUTH. Censored Truth is not Truth!

[graywarrior]

78. Yep.

[Better Believe It]

83. So you can remove posts that you don't agree with

Are you ready to declare that you will never censor and remove posts from the "greatest page" because you don't like the poster, don't agree with the content of the post or just want to reduce the number of views for that post? I've already done that.

If we are having so-called "democratic votes" on posts let's make it simple and honest without using the innocent sounding recommend and unrecommend feature.

DU'ers could be given the following two options to vote for:

1. Vote Yes To Post

Because you agree with the post and find it noteworthy.

2. Vote No To Remove The Post

Because you don't like the post or poster.

That's keeping it real.

[BlooInBloo]

84. (shrug) The same issue arises for rec'ing. That's not a new issue...

At least with unrec available, such things can possibly be fixed.

[Better Believe It]

88. Is it really fixing or just sticking it to posters you don't like?

[BlooInBloo]

89. The parallel question exists for rec'ing. Always has.

[Better Believe It]

90. ???? So recommending a post is a way for you to stick it to posters you don't like?

I have to admit that your comment doesn't make any sense, not even a little sense.

Do you mind explaining your illogical statement?

[BlooInBloo]

92. My apologies for over-estimating your thinking abilities...

unrec question: Are you UNrec'ing just because you do NOT like the poster (as opposed to the thread).

parallels

rec question: Are you REC'ing just because you DO like the poster (as opposed to the thread).


Once again, you have my most sincere apologies for assuming you to be possessed of a basic ability to think. I will do my utmost not to make that mistake again.

[kentuck]

94. B-I-B...

If you keep talking like that, I might have to think about taking you off my ignore list. :-)

[BlooInBloo]

96. I'm sure neither of us wants THAT to happen.

:P

[kentuck]

97. Are you voting nay again?

You're probably one of those freaks that believe in democracy?? :-)

[BlooInBloo]

98. Aw hell - I'm all mucked up - don't know which way I'm voting any more...

Maybe they SHOULD go back to 'vote yes only' - this yes/no choice thing is just too much for me!!!

[kentuck]

100. It is complicated...

That is obvious by the opposition to it.

[Better Believe It]

102. I know you don't. Perhaps I can help you. Just don't vote to remove posts.

Now that's not so hard for you to understand .... is it?

[BlooInBloo]

103. Naaah. I'll tough it out and vote as I see fit - or not vote at all. Thanks for defending...

my ability to do so!

[kentuck]

104. I think you could come to a fair agreement?

If you promise not to recommend crap, others could vote not to unrecommend crap. Isn't that fair? At the same time, you could promise to not unrecommend those posts that have merit? But to be fair about it, you would have to maintain that right to unrecommend whatever you want. That is free speech. You have that right.

[Better Believe It]

105. So "voting" to censor a post by removing it from the "greatest page" is democractic.

Sounds sort of 1984ish to me.

Democracy is dictatorship.

Censorship is freedom of the press.

Censoring posts by "voting" to remove them is pure democracy.

Sure. Everyone will buy that.

[kentuck]

108. What distortion. What muddy rationalizations.

You can vote to put it on but the majority cannot vote to take it off? Sounds a little like a dictatorship, to me.

I personally do not think there is a DLC plan or a "far-leftist" plan to take over DU and prevent anyone from getting a chance to argue their points to their heart's content. Nor do I think there is a plan by anyone to take over DU. I think the idea of voting yea or nay must have become jaded somewhere down the road?

The post is not being removed just because it is no longer on the greatest page. It might still be at the top of the page in General Discussion or GDP? Surely you would not suggest that all the posts in GD that are not on the greatest page are not worthy? Nobody is being "censored". That is mighty close to a bald-faced lie?

"Censoring posts by "voting" to remove them is pure democracy." You can't lose what you never had. The only fair way to decide who is right is to let the majority vote on it. That is called democracy. I will not make the decision? You will not make the decision? OK?

[BlooInBloo]

110. Yes, having the ability to vote yes, no, or not vote at all for the Greatest is democratic.

[kentuck]

91. I'm really sorry that you feel you do not get a fair hearing on DU...

First of all, a little honesty, your posts are not removed, just because they are not on the "greatest" page. It is my understanding that your post can remain on GD or GDP or wherever you are posting from. Just what do you think the "greatest page" is? Are you saying all of our posts here on GD have no merit if they are not on the "greatest page"?

Just who is it that wants to be the dictator? Who wants to permit a vote on the greatest page - not just a "yes" vote for recommendation, but also a "nay" vote for posts that stink or do not merit the greatest page, in some people's opinions? Which is the fairest way? A simple yes vote for the greatest page? Or a yes or nay vote that might seem to some to be more democratic than the single, dictatorial "yes" vote?

Just my opinion.

[Redneck Socialist]

85. I like it

and I especially like the epic angst it seems to cause a few folks. It's been entertaining as hell in GD lately.

[kentuck]

93. You friggin' Redneck !

:-)

[Kickin_Donkey]

87. FAIL ...

K and U

[kentuck]

95. Why?

Donkey?

[Life Long Dem]

101. Pass

Recommend, with nothing to hide. What people - I think - need to realize is that I am in recovery, and so are you and you, and the whole nation is in recovery. That is except for Palin who is already recovered anyway.

[UTUSN]

106. How about an explanation on how *this* (linked) type of thread gets 24 Recs

How does THIS fit into the Rec/UnRec scheme of things?!1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6043840

[TexasObserver]

107. Such threads belong in the Lounge.

[Forkboy]

109. Because many, many people care about a great DUer.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

111. He's a sweetheart and as such is popular here?

Just my way of seeing it. :shrug:

[kentuck]

113. Those that disagree with you could vote to unrecommend.

But I doubt that is going to happen. Most DUers are rational and compassionate Democrats.

[UTUSN]

115. HaHAH, unlike ME, of course!1 HahahahaHAH!1 (NOT n/t, now EDITED)

I was going to laugh it off and had actually fired-off the machine and was halfway into the bed, but decided to get up, fire it back up, and make the points.

1) I've known the "Kentuck" handle forever and give it in my mind a vague respect, although I would not be able to pinpoint what point of view you have besides being a DUer forever. I vaguely remember my having crossed one sword long ago, who knows what about. So here I am participating in an internet "discussion" and just because my OPINION is contrary to your OPINION, you make the leap to a flaming slur like implying that I, or I guess whoever disagrees with you, am NOT "rational and compassionate". (You didn't address me directly, more like hiding the hand that threw the stone.)

2) My point in citing the linked thread WAS "rational" since that "Personals" type of threads doesn't precisely belong in GD as ONE other person has said. I don't know anything about the DUer named in the thread, nothing about their situation. I am mainly looking to "politics" as to what might be expected with 24 Recs on a political website. So, you, Kentuck, in the other thread that takes the other side of your argument here, took my breath away by your saying over there that THAT thread didn't deserve to be on the Greatest, without mentioning that THIS/YOUR thread, for some "reason" (is it Rational?) DOES?!1

I believe that these two companion threads prove the point that an ORGANIZED FOLLOWING for one side of a discussion thread will get it Rec-ed and will get the other side Un-Rec'd.

Oh, and what kind of "rational and compassionate" people flame fellow members with implications that they are NOT rational and compassionate?!1

Btw, I've long floated the suggestion that there should be a "Personals" forum, for all the, well, PERSONAL threads, like illness, deaths, or even self-promotional/Vanity threads. And, believe it or not, every time I have Alerted on a GD thread because of "Personal" content, I actually have felt COMPASSIONATE and bad!1

[Lone_Star_Dem]

117. I agree with you

Which is exactly why I feel the whole unrec thing will work itself out in the end. I have faith in our ability deal with a small amount of self-moderation. :)

[Forkboy]

114. I think Skinner should implement a new feature every week.

Keep this place on it's toes.

[kentuck]

116. Maybe next week, it will be...

no icons allowed that show little fire-breathing dragons? :-)

[Forkboy]

118. Let's not get carried away.

Do you know how many threads I would have to start to complain about that? It'd make the MJ/Unrec weeks look like a picnic. ;)

[Usrename]

121. In your opinion, why is the unrec information kept hidden from members?

Why do you think that the new feature includes a scheme to hide this information?

[chill_wind]

125. I don't see it as a purposeful scheme or deception

(contrary to a couple snarky projections and ridicule that anyone even commenting about it deems it "vote fraud")I think the Admins said upfront they abandoned it because they felt it "confused people." Any maybe a software tweak isn't all that simple. What fascinates me is a few who are adamantly for the function, a symbolic "consensus", but nothing too fully transparent or quantitative about how deep or broad that actual consensus. I say what's the fear? I know your question wasn't for me, but that was just my 2 cents.

[BlooInBloo]

127. I'm all for showing the counts.

[chill_wind]

130. I know you are, Bloo. I was thinking of the objections

of a few posters yesterday who want the tool but none of what they perceived as any potential fall-out. (eg should there be posts registering really high negatives.)

[kentuck]

131. Maybe there could be a place on the Greatest Page...?

for those posts with the highest negatives?

[chill_wind]

133. Huh?

[Usrename]

140. What would be wrong with that?

A super-dungeon where realy marginalized left-wing views could appear.

I like it.

[kentuck]

129. I don't think Skinner is close-minded?

They will try it for a few days and if it isn't working, then they may change their minds? But they own the site. It is their decision to make.

Maybe they want to go in a different direction? Maybe they think there is more nonsense now than before? Who knows?

If the majority of people on DU vote for a thread up or down, I tend to agree with the judgment of the folks here, generally speaking. I don't think anybody is out to get anybody. If there is a conspiracy to get on the greatest page, I don't agree with that either. Perhaps Skinner and the Admins will just shut down the Greatest Page for two or three days and see how it works? There is no reward beyond a rec or an unrec.

[chill_wind]

132. Where did I say that he was close-minded?

Now you've really lost me.

[kentuck]

134. I'm sorry..

I didn't mean to infer that you said he was "close-minded", I was simply making that observation about Skinner and the Admins from decisions they have made in the past. They are not close-minded.

If the new feature makes DU more serious, more intelligent, more readable, and less bullshit, then I think it might be a good thing. DU was formed at at a very critical time in the history of our country. It was created with the utmost seriousness to get out the word to the people. We remember when Khephra and Andy Stephenson passed away. They did not monitor this site just to see it become a freeper amusement park.

Now, after eight years, we find that we have survived the disaster of Bush of Cheney. But they left a mess in their wake. We have an intelligent man in the White House but he needs to hear from us. If we think he is on the wrong path, then we should let him know. We are in uncharted waters with our economy and banks. As Democrats, we must see that our people are not left out in the cold as the banks prosper. It is our duty to see that when our people get sick, they have a right to go to a doctor. Nobody is asking for the moon.

[chill_wind]

136. That would have made an absolutely beautiful and compelling OP.

This is a message I can truly appreciate.

Peace!

[BlooInBloo]

137. I kan haz moon plz? kkthxbai!

[seabeyond]

122. if you never pay attention to recommend, then all this mess matters not... lol. n/t

[DainBramaged]

138. Who is fearful of message board retribution?

Life is too short. What a juvenile concept.

[rucky]

141. Look at the Greatest Page: It's all quality.

:thumbsup:

[omega minimo]

143. Do you mind if I ask you your opinion

about what was objectionable before?

It hasn't been made clear, for those who didn't know there was an issue about Greatest, what the problems were.

Maybe b/c DU is somewhat of a free for all and moves quickly, I didn't focus on what others (apparently) were so bothered by. And wherever these discussions upset with Greatest were happening, they weren't out in the open AFAIK.

Please consider this a sincere question.

Hints I've picked up have been:

"Obama bashing," "Rec this thread if....," "Nuclear power..........." (which I've never noticed at all..... whatever that mess is about) and that's about it.

:shrug:

[wildeyed]

142. The great thing about this post, if someone disagrees, they can't unrecommend

without being a total hypocrite.

[MoonRiver]

144. I can't unrec your thread!

:wtf:

[jakefrep]

145. The discussion about unrecommend...

...has made me wonder if the "recommend" was truly fully utilized. As in, do all of those who read a thread, post, and/or find its contents pertinent recommend a thread?

[TexasObserver]

147. It's pretty clear the majority of posters love the unrecommend feature.